lolcraft

You'd want him to "make things happen that would be simply impossible otherwise [if he didn't had 5 million]". My rebuttal is that he's done exactly that, but he's done so in one take, not allowing his fear of losing independence from later interfering with his ability to change things. That takes knowing oneself, and should be admired.

So, no one in Baghdad uses bodyguards? All Iraqi policemen must be at all the time in uniform, even for covert entry? I don't think an AK is any convincing ground for believing them to be insurgents. Americans aren't the only ones with rights to carry guns, specially in the most dangerous city on Earth.

At 4:12, it definitely looks like there's an RPG. Even more so at 4:19.

It's a pity you couldn't be bothered to watch thirty seconds more of the video. At 4:49, when the helicopter goes around the house, we see the full group, one second or so before the fire starts. No one is holding an RPG.

What you say that looks like one is actually a glimpse of some sort of tube. I guess construction workers must have a hard time on Baghdad, if that's grounds for use of deadly force.

The helicopter was called in by ground troops who were taking small arms fire from a small group of men in this area.

They seem very relaxed, for insurgents in the middle of a fire fight. They are walking, move in a close group, are calm and walk exposed in the middle of the street. Not exactly standard military procedure.

If you were an USAA general, would you promote to commander someone who would gave permission to kill based on faint suspicions and their definition of "very quickly"? Because that doesn't sound like an official. That sounds like a God.

The helicopter was at very long range; no one of the guys on the ground looked at it. The "RPG" was pointed to the ground. You can see that it was a camera before he starts to fire. Further, an RPG takes two seconds or so to draw, time which the gunner could've used for confirmation. It didn't look as a threat to the helicopter, once seen; still the gunner freaked out and shot them.

Very organized team? They were two guys in a dirty van.

Yes, it wasn't, strictly speaking, murder. Still, it was unjustified, criminal use of force.

As opposed to, what exactly, how the publishers of the United States of Fictionalamerica do? Or did Le Guin really thought her publisher was a honest non-profit interested on sharing and expanding the public domain?

Another discussion is IQ correlation with chess prowess or mathematics ability. I would argue that chess and mathematics are two separated skills which are applications of intelligence; so there's definitely a correlation between both, but entirely determined by experience.

Summary: "intelligent" interfaces will always fail for trying to solve a problem (the Chinese room) which is un-decidable even for a human mind, and so the future will use dumb, reliable interfaces (until we can figure out telepathy). Corollary: users shouldn't be blamed for not wanting to trade reliability for "awesomeness". Read the article, it's worth it.

No you didn't. The question you asked was, and I quote: "You're saying it's anti-competitive for companies to act in accordance with their own interests rather than go out of their way to support their competitors?" Note you used supporting, a passive role, rather than aiding, which is active. To state the obvious: your mistake was assuming that the process of synonymy strictly preserves meaning, which isn't the case.

Save lines of code != get work done quicker. What might appear as a paradox should be obvious: we spend more time debugging, modifying, expanding and organizing than writing.

IMO, imperative programming cleanly maps out to the real world.

More so does CUDA with a random number generator. You can't get more precise than quantum (yet).

Truth is it's so much more easier to think imperative.

That's like saying it's easier for a Chinese to speak Mandarin than for a French.

So, Is functional programming really worth it?

To use, it depends. To learn, yes. One can't learn too much in life.

Seems that, for all our skepticism, enlightenment and theories of relativity, we just went and exchanged atheist saints for religious martyrs. The irony is delicious...

To an outsider, the problem seems that the current establishment, posing as laissez-faire, has made an art of "privatizing the benefit, socializing the loss". With a bank, no one is risking the chaos of millions of people stripped out of their savings, roaming and ransacking. The prevention measures differ.

For example, Sweden nationalized a bank which nearly bankrupted, thus punishing the stakeholders by removing their profits. The USA just pays them more money. The message is clear: let's resume the financial bonfire, because risk pays.

At the end of the day who are more "libertarian", the socialists or the neo-liberals?

What this feature needs now is code correction on the fly. Any error reporter smart enough to ask "did you mean 'x'?" should allow me to answer "yes", and write the changes to the file. That would sell clang to a lot of people.

Well, at least it's optional.

I doubt it. All people I know use Google as their URL entry field, as the concept of URL is too machine-oriented to be comfortably used by the average guy, when good search is available. Given that, Google donating to Wikipedia is a pure win-win situation.

On the other hand, maybe you wanted to say "boring tasks which are necessary". But don't they stop being bullshit, by definition, when there's some monetary incentive attached to them?

Indeed.

If people like him wanted so hard to travel to my country, I'd already be rallying my government to give those people a damn grant. Time for the USA to reconsider whether the TSA's "security" pays.

For further questions, refer to the C++ Frequently Questioned Answers.

TV is not a particular series; it doesn't follow that people who hate TV must hate The Wire. TV as a whole, as a linear, inconvenient way of displaying content which doesn't allow an easy way to filter out the crap, is what it's being biased against.

; Plots 24 yearly maps of calibrated (PCR-infilled or not) MXD reconstructions ; of growing season temperatures. Uses “corrected” MXD – but shouldn’t usually ; plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to ; the real temperatures.

Do you expect the average programmer to take a 2 year course in climate science to truly understand what MXD means instead of instantly running around screaming "wolf!"? If you did so, be disappointed (a careful reading of Google results for "CRU code" might be enlightening).